Search form

Anitere Flores Kills Off Pro-Gun Bills, But at What Cost?

Sen. Greg Steube entered into his first year as a state senator with big hopes of passing sweeping pro-gun bills in Florida. But it appears one of the state’s top lawmakers has put the kabosh on his ambitions early, sending his gun bills to the legislative graveyard on the first day of session.

On Tuesday, Senate President Pro Tempore Anitere Flores, R-Miami, effectively said she wouldn’t support Steube’s 10 gun proposals, which would have included airport carry, campus carry and open carry in Florida.

Steube had a small victory when the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill which would allow concealed weapons permit holders to temporarily store their firearms in courthouses, but the victory was only short-lived.

Flores, a key vote on the Judiciary Committee, vowed she wouldn’t support Steube’s 10 other bills, which means they would have virtually no chance of making it onto the Senate floor.

Flores is one of five Republicans and four Democrats on the committee, so if she votes against bills and all Democrats vote in lockstep, Steube’s gun bills would be sent to their graves early.

Flores said her decision shouldn’t come as a shock to those who have followed her career -- and to those who read up on her gun history, it appears Flores has opposed much of Steube’s bill for quite some time.

In January, Dan Zimmerman of the Truth About Guns, a gun-related website, said he had called Flores’ office and was accidentally told she did not support Steube’s original proposal, SB 140, which would have legalized open carry. Zimmerman was later told Flores was still reviewing her options on the bill at the time.

Flores was also one of three Republican lawmakers who demanded a special session after the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting in January.

“Throughout my personal, professional, and legislative career I have expressed concerns with the reduction of traditional gun-free zones,” Flores told Sunshine State News Tuesday evening. “This is not something new nor should it be a surprise to those who follow the legislative process.”

But Flores hasn’t always been on the opposite side of gun legislation. She, too, had been an advocate of guns, even receiving a 100 percent rating from the NRA in 2015. The NRA also endorsed Flores during her first bid for the Senate in 2010.

Flores said she was voting in favor with her district, which leans Democratic.

“My constituents in Miami-Dade and Monroe have been vocal in that this view reflects their opinions," she said.

The National Rifle Association was largely unhappy with Flores’ actions on Tuesday, questioning why the senator would come out against the bills.

“I thought that the Senate was an independent body,” NRA’s Marion Hammer told SSN. “There are 40 members. I’m unaware the entire Senate has authorized her to speak for them.”

Tuesday’s events came as a massive blow to Steube, who has led the charge for pro-gun bills since being elected to the Florida Legislature. Throughout his career, he has campaigned largely on conservative issues, especially on guns.

Steube ran for the SD 23 seat against former Republican Rep. Ray Pilon, who told Sunshine State News pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association and their lobbyist Marion Hammer were pivotal in getting his opponent elected to the state Senate.

Pilon also said the NRA would have it out for anyone who voted against their bills in the Florida Legislature -- and at that point, it could mean Flores for whichever office she pursues after her Senate term is up.

“If I disagreed with [Marion Hammer] on campus carry, she crucified me politically,” Pilon said. “She was a major influence in getting Steube elected and defeating me and the other candidates.”

Pilon said many lawmakers have cowered in fear of Hammer and the NRA.

“My experience with many legislators and even committee chairs was, even if they disagreed with her they were politically afraid to challenge her,” Pilon said. “She also was influential in removing Senator [Miguel Diaz de la Portilla]..[who] would not hear the guns-on-campus bill last year.”

Flores doesn’t seem to be too afraid of the NRA. She had no issues voting against a series of bills the organization held near and dear, despite it being a relatively unpopular stance with her fellow GOP lawmakers, most of whom support Second Amendment issues.

Flores’ Senate term will end in 2018, and she is rumored to be exploring a run for Mayor of Miami once her time in the Legislature is up. Flores currently resides in a Democratic-leaning district, but it wouldn't be unheard of for the NRA to find a candidate to primary her should she decide to run for another office. That could prove to be especially alarming for Flores since primary turnout tends to be low in Miami-Dade races.

While gun issues might not be a pivotal debate in Miami-Dade, the NRA is frequently known to strongarm candidates who have opposed its agendas in the past. Like Pilon, former Rep. Charles McBurney’s ambitions to become a local judge were dashed after the NRA ran a furious attack campaign on him for voting against Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” burden of proof bill in 2016.

Some gave Flores a new nickname on Tuesday: “Madame DLP,” after former Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, who killed off numerous gun bills in the Senate last year.

Other gun groups like Florida Carry trashed DLP after he axed the bills at the time, while sources close to Senate leadership said DLP was merely a victim of a GOP decision to have him spearhead sending the legislation into the legislative boneyard.

DLP lost his reelection campaign later that year.

Gun control groups like Everytown and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense seemed overjoyed at the new development and praised Flores’ work to kill off the bills.

“Meet Florida's new #gunsense champion -- Senator Flores,” Michelle Gajda, president of the Florida Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, tweeted. “Moms Demand is proud to stand with her against dangerous bills.”

Sunshine State News attempted to contact Everytown, but had not received a response at the time of this article’s posting.

Flores denied meeting with Everytown or Moms Demand Action prior to today’s meeting, but had not responded whether she spoke to Hammer or the NRA prior to shooting down Steube’s legislation.

Comments

So. Did any of you pay attention when Texas had a similar issue? We need a Texas style approach in Florida. They did the same thing in reverse in Ohio when the anti's there pulled the same garbage when Ohio was trying to pass concealed carry. You simply can not arrest large group of people all carrying guns. And they will not even try. Bad publicity. But like Texas and Ohio it takes people who are not afraid to act. So lets march. But it's going to take hundreds and thousand to show up. So if the mommies can do it why not us?

What can one expect from a demopublican there
has to be a way to overcome the damage that has been done. I believe this pro gun legislation should be brought up again with the help of the Senate president and thus overule flores

Listen to the audio for the committee debate on SB 616. One of the Dems questions an attorney giving testimony on why he feels like he should be allowed to check a gun at the courthouse. He says that he has been threatened twice and wishes that he would be able to have his gun when walking from the courthouse to his vehicle. The Dem Senator asks him why he feels like if he wasn't actually assaulted in these two cases that having a gun would have made any difference. W T F. Seriously... gun-grabbers want to punish gun owners for something that they are only afraid that they MIGHT do someday with that gun. Yet they want to protect criminals by saying that you don't have a right to protect yourself until you're actually murdered. Pretty sure if this guy actually NEEDED his pistol in one of these cases, he probably wouldn't have been around to testify at that committee meeting. All this anti-gun stuff is coming from a ridiculous, emotion-driven, irrational, juvenile point of view. It's so foolish and has no basis in logic that I can't believe that any sane person can buy into the so-called "logic". Look, I get it... you don't like guns. They make you scared. Heck, there are things that I have irrational phobias of... but I don't try to ban them. Admit that guns scare you and you want to take them away because you don't like them... but don't try to convince the rest of us that there is some sound logical and justifiable reason because your argument. No one who isn't driven by emotion and an irrational fear of inanimate objects is going to agree with you.

You nailed it.... Imagine one of our fifty states stepping in and saying we state lawmakers don't care what your Ist. Amendment of the Constitution says, if you want to speak in this state you need to get a background check, finger printed, take a course, and then pay for a license...

Well said, Meh. Even though I don't live in Florida, I will save every penny I have and wait for the next time she's involved in a primary. If she has an opponent, you can be assured he/she will receive my campaign donation, no matter who it is. Kudos to Florida's number one patriot Marion P Hammer, for bringing this to our attention.

Flores has taken over the role of Diaz de la Portilla from previous years. Another South Florida RINO that is just doing whatever they feel like they need to do in order to try to get reelected in a left-leaning area of the state. Not sure why she didn't see what happened to him and take it to heart. Regardless, the fact remains that, once again a single senator can circumvent the will of the people. If you dislike this legislation, then vote it down when it hits the floor. The idea that IT CAN'T EVEN GET TO A VOTE means that these people have TOO MUCH power. At least let the full chamber vote on the bill. And what is going on with Cuban "Republicans" these days? If ANYONE should be aware of why the rights of the people to keep and bear arms should be preserved, you would think that it would be CUBANS. The reality is this... gun free zones are worthless. These laws are as worthless to criminals as putting up a "NO CRIME ALLOWED HERE" sign and hoping that they obey it. Columbine, Pulse Nightclub, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Ft. Lauderdale Airport... all gun free zones. 98.4% of all mass shootings occur in gun free zones. The Sandy Hook shooting occurred in a state with an assault weapons ban in place. Columbine occurred when the ENTIRE country was under a Federal assault weapons ban. None of that matters. ONLY FIVE STATES IN THE COUNTRY prohibit open carry, yet I don't see the Wild West blood-in-the-streets going on with open carriers in those states like they claim will happen here. The fact is that people have been trained to be scared of guns (ironically, they are being trained at the same time by the same people to NOT be afraid of the people who are most likely to do us harm -- so stupid and backward). There are one and a half carry licenses in the state of Florida. Those guns are all around you all the time, but just because you don't see them, you can pretend that they don't exist. And if you can pretend that they don't exist, then you feel better about yourself. You're being foolish and naive. Hopefully you never find yourself in a position when you have to defend your life or the life of someone you love... however, if you do find yourself in that position, I would bet that one of the thoughts that goes through your gun-hating mind is "BOY, DO I WISH I HAD A GUN RIGHT NOW."

It works that way everywhere including on the Federal level. This is a Constitutional Republic gone awry. The purpose of this form of government is specifically to protect the rights of the people from those who wish to steal them away -- even if it's the majority. However, it's been twisted to the point where all it does is allow crooked politicians who care about nothing more than getting reelected to do just that... take the rights away from the people because they THINK they know better. I already have a mommy and a daddy. I don't need another one in the form of the government. And have you noticed that the Democrats always seem to toe the party line while the Republicans can stop fighting among themselves? You don't hear about DINOs, only RINOs. The Republican Party is a dying breed, and it can't stop trying to kill itself off faster and faster.

Anitere Flores,... Another "potential NEW "half" STATE of "Cubaniola" pandering, pettifogger in SOUTH FLORIDA (Miami) , who has (with the urgings of Puerto Rican "transplants" who have already set the island of Puerto Rico "on the path" to destruction...and others ) has displayed her "Momism" and decided to display her "the tail wagging the dog" power. FLORIDA CITIZENS: Pay attention, as this portends the "beginning of the end" of the "Florida we all remember and loved";... and the "creeping Hispanic mentality pervasive in the growing "sanctuary city of Miami" (and South Florida) where vacant legislative seats are gradually filled by Obama's Illegal (and legal) Alien Invaders supporting the transforming & displacing the long existing culture. Florida is becoming another "Paris" (where demonstrators and activists will carry their "native flags" while denigrating "Old Glory". I fear Florida may be ultimately doomed by 'forced tourism" (by paid commercial advertisers in (and north of) the "snow belt"); and the transmigration of a body from one dying hispanic state/country to another (in this case: Florida)...

I know I'm late here but, woah there buddy. Hold your horses. Let's not blame a group of people for the decisions of one. I, myself, am Puerto Rican and do not agree with what Flores did. I'm not the only Puerto Rican that believes this way also. Of course we also do not consider ourselves Puerto Rican but Americans. Puerto Rico may just happen to be where we or our parents came from. I only mention being Puerto Rican as you happen to single out Cubans, Puerto Rican's and apparently any hispanics. I am a full supporter of the 2nd Annendment and hold a CCWP. Let's put the focus of this one person's decision to not allow these things to go to a vote rather than concentrating on what her ethinicity is. Thank you, and God Bless America!

In all honesty, the 2nd amendment could not be more clear. It's only one sentence. Florida has a well regulated militia dedicated to the security of the state. It's called the Florida National Guard. I urge all people who feel the need to protect their state's rights with firearms to find the self sacrifice required to join a national guard unit in their state, and start making a difference. By the same definition, any other loosely affiliated band of gun owners are not 'well regulated', nor are they dedicated to the security of their state. It's really that simple. Respect the 2nd amendment. Respect requires self sacrifice. Show that you have some respect for our constitution and display the self sacrifice required to serve it by enlisting. It's really just that simple.

Why should I join the National Guard? I volunteered for the US Army in 73. The first thing my government did after shaving my head was issue me an M-16. Why would a government that had no problem issuing me and a million others an automatic weapon to protect ourselves and defend their country have a problem with us caring a handgun to defend ourselves and families when returning to civilian life? It's really just that simple.

Andrew, please, please, please do just a little bit of honest research into the thoughts of the Founding Fathers when they originally drafted the Bill of Rights. Read their other writings, correspondence, and opinions. It couldn't be any more clear; and it's been rehashed by Constitutional historians and lawyers over and over again. The Second Amendment is NOT about the National Guard -- PERIOD. If you don't like the idea of private firearms rights or if it scares you or if you're against the concept of using firearms for self defense, then by all means, work toward repealing it. If you and all the anti-gun folks succeed, then so be it... there is a process in place for amending the Constitution. However, do try to reinterpret or pretend to know what it stands for. I could go through the laundry list of things that clearly demonstrate why this idea is incorrect, but the fact is that it's out there for you to find on your own. The thing is that you and people like you don't care what the Founding Fathers intended to express... you only want it to fit your agenda. Even if I personally was strongly anti-gun, I would have a hard time arguing that they intended to protect an INDIVIDUAL right. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that is there to protect THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHTS. That's ridiculous. Why would everything else in the Bill of Rights be there to protect people FROM the government, and then they plop in the Second Amendment that is there to protect the government's right to have a National Guard. Oh... and by the way... "well regulated" means "properly functioning, well equipped, well trained, etc." -- like a "well regulated" clock that keeps good time. It does NOT mean that the government heavily regulates the right. The fact that you don't even know this demonstrates that you haven't even done a minimal amount of research about this topic yet pretend to know what it means. And the "security of the state" means protection of the people from all threats, foreign and domestic, governmental or otherwise. The "state" is made up of "the people" and the "security" of them means protection from everything that would make them "insecure"... regardless of if that means a crime wave or a tyrannical dictator or an attack by a foreign government.

Give it a break "Andy boy"! I served my country already,.... BUT I can't depend upon YOU or your ilk to defend me NOW. The National Guard and "State Militias' have already been co-opted by the 'Joint Chiefs of Staff' about ten or so years ago under G.W.Bush. They are ALL "under the same umbrella" now, and "when they come" (under the guise of "national defense"), they ALL come together for "your person and your guns" (2nd Amendment be damned)! You have no idea just how close we came to that under the Obama administration. "Molen Labe" my friend... The Second Amendment is very simply worded so that even coddled morons like you can understand it !

Thank you for your service. I am unaware of any legislation or executive action that President Obama was involved with to come for you and your guns. If the purpose of your gun ownership is to defend yourself from 'THEM' when they ALL come to take your guns and your person, perhaps that purpose is self defeating. I grew up in this country where, as a boy, I could go to school, or grocery shopping with my folks, without the knowledge that people all around me were armed with deadly weapons so that they can protect their right to carry deadly weapons around. I'd like to preserve that for my kids. It isn't about us anymore. We have to be brave enough to make this stupid world OK for them while they grow up, not rub their nose in the fear that their life can be snatched away at any moment. Leaving your guns at home is exhibiting true bravery to the kids that are definitely watching.

You do realize that the violent crime rate has steadily gone down since "you were a boy" even though firearms ownership and right-to-carry laws have gone WAY up, right? Correlation or causation, the fact remains that there are WAY WAY more guns and significantly less violent crime. The "good ol' days" weren't so great... it's just that you weren't so aware of the crime because (1) there wasn't the level of media coverage or information flow that there is now and (2) there wasn't such a concentrated effort by that same media coverage to convince you that guns are evil and causing all the problems we have today. Don't believe me, look up the FBI crime statistics on violent crime rates. Check the homicide rates in large cities over the years.

There is zero correlation between gun ownership levels and violent crime rates. The average criminal who may be predisposed to perpetrating a violent crime against a stranger is no more or less inclined due to gun ownership levels, because he doesn't know the statistics. It is since the 1970s that police began to treat domestic violence as a public crime and get involved. This is the number one reason violent crime rates have dropped, because police now concern themselves with the number one source of violent crime, domestic abuse. It is still the number one violent crime that young to middle aged women may experience, more so than rape, mugging, and murder by strangers combined. No amount of gun ownership has impacted it. Good police involvement has. Trying to take credit for lower violent crime rates by citing increased gun ownership is preposterous. The CDC has all the statistics to show exactly which violent crimes have dropped off. Domestic violence. Period. This doesn't mean that anyone is remotely interested in taking your guns away. It isn't even a topic that comes up in democratic circles. This is a message that only the NRA preaches. You should be mad at them for getting everyone worked up over a non-existent gun stealing boogeyman. Moderates and Democrats want a national conversation about mental health issues. You have to pass a test given by the state to drive a car. How is a gun different? Beer manufacturers spend a lot of money supporting treatment centers for folks who cannot handle their products in moderation. Does the NRA spend a dime trying to address the issue of people who are not stable enough to handle their products? No. They spend their money convincing gun owners that their guns are about to be snatched, and trying to convince them that they need 3 guns in each hand. How many crimes a year are private gun owners stopping? How many mass shootings a year are unhinged gun owners perpetrating? I think there is a ton of middle ground here for the gun lobby to meet in the middle and join in a discussion about how we can take reasonable measures to make gun ownership more responsible gun ownership. We look like tribal warlords to the rest of the world. A tiny fraction of that NRA money would go further if they used it educate school counselors, or sponsored programs to identify and intervene in the lives of the mentally unstable who are at risk for poor decision making. It's your mess, you clean it up.

So basically what you are hinging your arguments on is extortion, and you want the government to come in and do the job you don't have the sack to do on your own.
Your response is full of keywords from the left - "reasonable" and "common sense" (you forgot to make it one word though...) - thus your motives are suspect.
That being said, what you are failing to see is that firearms ownership in this country is an enumerated right, not a 'privilege' like you are treating it. You're asking for private organizations and people to be coerced into funding what you consider a public issue.
Last time I checked that's extortion and theft. If I took your money without your consent, you'd rightfully have me thrown in jail. If the government does it, it's "good policy".
As for Obama not having come for anyone's guns, it's not from a lack of effort. If gun owners just sat there and did what Daddy Government told them to do, there would have been the rounds of confiscation attempts years ago. Look at the UK. A hundred years ago, you could get a Sten (machine gun) out of a shop in London with little trouble. Toss two in the boot, old chap, and let's call it a day. But their government got fidgety because (gasp!) the people could fight back, and there were rounds of restrictions and confiscations over the next couple of decades. The Brits, conditioned to just go along with things, lined up and did what their masters told them to do. Now, UK gun ownership is severely restricted. There's a few holdouts with buried caches, of course, but by and large the right does not exist in the UK anymore.
Gun owners talk about confiscation because if the government is unchecked, it will happen. We keep our guns because we fight for the right to do so. Every administration since Racist-Incestuous Roosevelt has made moves on gun control, and people have fought back. And that's the way it should be.

Regardless of if there is correlation or causation or neither, the fact remains that more guns and more concealed carriers doesn't equal a more dangerous environment. If that were the case, then there would be more violent crime. And I'm not sure where you get your idea that the reason violent crime has dropped is because police are more focused on domestic abuse... that sounds like just something you get the impression is true. Cite some statistics, please. Almost all violent firearm usage comes at the hands of people who possess those guns illegally and almost all that violent crime is related to drugs, gangs, or -- as you say -- at the hands of someone that that person knows. So if the later has dropped off as you say, then that still leaves felons and thugs who commit crimes related to gang or drug violence with illegally possessed and obtained guns... none of which is going to be remotely affected by anything that gun control advocates continually push. As for the driver's license vs gun possession argument, it's a tired one... so I can give you the same tired answer: one is a right and the other is a privilege. However, the reality is that driving is FAR FAR more dangerous than carrying a gun. If I have a gun in a holster on my hip, it is of no danger to anyone. I can literally exercise my right to self defense without putting anyone else in any danger. The same cannot be said of driving a car. You literally cannot operate a motor vehicle on a public road and not be a danger to other people. We trust complete strangers to be hurtling head on at a frightening speed with monstrous chunks of deadly metal within mere feet or inches of our loved ones... and three times as many people are killed in traffic fatalities as are murdered with firearms each year in the US. However, since most people who couldn't care less about guns would lose their collective minds if we took away cars, that isn't even a conversation. And are you REALLY serious when you say that no one is "remotely interested" in taking away guns?!?! That has been shown time and time again to be the ultimate goal of nearly every anti-gun group out there. Chip, chip, chip away. How about states like California and NY where certain guns are all but banned? First it's the scary "assault weapons", then it's something else... attack magazine capacity, attack ammunition, attack attack attack. Call it "common sense gun legislation", try to divide and conquer between the self-defense community and the hunters. If you honestly feel like the ultimate goal isn't to end private ownership of firearms completely, then you are not in touch with the people on your side. I have no problem saying that the NRA is flawed... I've posted right in these comments that I'm unhappy with them. I think they are a political organization that exists mostly to keep itself well fed. However, they aren't the problem. The people who are trying to enact new gun laws every time you turn around are the problem... and then they look at people who resist as "UNREASONABLE" folks who won't "compromise". Heck, the last time I looked up the definition of "compromise", I think it said something about each side giving up something to get something. What the gun control advocates want is not compromise. They want the other side to give up something and that's it. And tomorrow it's something else. What the NRA is not, however, is an organization that is around to spend money on keeping guns out of people's hands. It's not their reason for being... they are there for one purpose, and that's not to give an inch. Right or wrong, that's what lobbying organizations do. Their function is to push an agenda, just like the other side is pushing the agenda to limit guns. It's not their responsibility to fix the mental health situation in this country, nor do I want them to spend my money doing that. The gun lobby isn't there to "meet in the middle ground" any more than the gun control lobbyists are there to stop with the middle ground. It doesn't work that way. If the gun grabbers are so concerned about the mentally ill, then maybe they should work on that problem instead of trying to capitalize on nearly non-existent problems like mass shootings. Do you know the percentage of firearms homicides perpetrated by "assault weapons"? Like 1%. How about Democrats fix the broken dynamics going on in cities like Chicago where THOUSANDS get shot every year despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country? Or in Baltimore or Washington DC or Newark, NJ or any other number of high crime, anti-gun cities? They won't. Because that's hard and they are all about easy and all about headlines and pandering to people who think with their hearts and not their brains. It's BS political laziness. Do you know about all the programs that the NRA puts in place to promote gun safety? Do you know the Eddie Eagle program that goes into schools and teaches gun safety to children? Probably not because the media doesn't talk about it. Plus schools don't even want to be associated with anything NRA-related so the program is banned by a lot of school boards. Do you know about the programs that the NRA puts on like "Refuse to be a Victim" that has NOTHING to do with firearms, but rather just teaches groups like women and elderly and targeted minorities how to avoid crime and protect themselves. Are you aware of how many NRA instructors held free firearms training for LGBTQ folks after the Pulse nightclub shooting? Are you aware of how many NRA instructors volunteer their time to put on free gun safety seminars at places like Gander Mountain and Cabelas? And here is a vitally important question for you... are you aware of HOW MANY crimes are stopped by a firearm each year? I'm not talking about shooting... I'm talking about merely presenting a gun in self defense. You obviously think it's minimal based on what you said. However the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research THROUGH THE CDC in 2013 that use surveys to estimate self defense use of firearms to be between 500k and 3 MILLION times per year. Compare that to the 10-12k of firearms homicides per year. Anti-gun advocates LOVE talking about "gun violence" but include suicides which make up about two thirds of all gun deaths each year.

I have one question for Flores. What part of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States do you not understand. It says Right of the People shall not be infringed. Now you better step back because you took an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of Florida, maybe you missed the part in college where it said the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land, and that State Constitutions can not restrict the rights of the people bestowed upon them by the creator. Now you want to try again with trying to tell We the People of Florida where we can and can not possess weapons? I think it is about time for our Governor to start trying these people for violating their oath of office, and put them in jail I don't care what character they have after their name.